【Flyer杀G】小组-7.22 Issue17, by Sean

柏拉图的世界UID: 2581296

17. "There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws."

In a civilized territory, hardly can one live irrelevant with laws, which are concerned with our individual benefits and the fate of the entire society. How should one behave facing to various laws? In addressing such issue, statement proposed here contains two major opinions: (1) laws could be divided into just laws and unjust laws, perhaps by individuals in a society; (2) based on such classification, individuals are supposed to obey and defy unjust laws. I consider both of the two fail to notice complexity of judgment and behavior of social members towards laws. This issue is fraught with the nature and responsibility of laws, personal values and concepts, and relationship between society and laws. In view of its immanent complexity, I would ask for deliberation on the urge to classify laws into just or unjust ones, and to go against the latter.
My reasoning would begin with the nature of laws in a society, especially in the more and more inter-woven society. Laws are contracts of social members, for the essential purpose to maintain functioning of society. Thus, in view of complex consist of society, to satisfy each concerned stratum is not accessible. Laws are kind of outgrowth of game theory, pursuing a balance among conflicting benefits. For instance, laws forbidding industries resulting in pollution may kick some factories out of business, thus diminish finance of local government and elevate unemployment. It is realistic for the local citizens to annunciate the inequity of concerning laws. Moreover, from the angel of personal values, laws also fail to obtain unanimous fairness, too. Governments’ imposing more taxes on rich people undergoes contradicts from libertarians, who argue that as long as the millionaires amassed their treasure in decent manners, depriving extra money from them stands on no ground. Also, note the intense social debate on the legislation on abortion, homosexuality. Bearing in mind the essential responsibility of laws, no unqualified standard for category of just and unjust laws can be confirmed.
Moreover, if the judgment of laws is performed by an individual, variables barring the previous benefits and values can work. People inclined to get angry and fight, probably spit on the strict rules punishing violence, in which case personal character wield the judgment.

Even though some laws are conspicuously unequal, or violating some social member’s rights severely, I still consider the broad advocacy of personal disobey or resistance against them requires deliberation. In scope of the society as a whole, the maintenance of social functioning probably suffers from arbitrary contra-behavior from individuals. It is possible consequence of that disorder overweighs the benefit of that individual gained from such disobedience, and do harm to other members. In the former example where the contaminating industries are shut off, suppose that the citizens maintain the operation of their factories against the pertinent laws. Probably because the pollutants are delivered by rivers, towns including themselves and surrounding ones suffer from undrinkable water or declination of food. In scope of individuals, disobey and resistance may not be choice sound enough to consolidate their own rights. Because under a relatively wholesome law system, they can appeal to departments such as courts, judicial committees. Those pathways may lead to reform of laws themselves, thus change victims’ condition by the roots.
Howbeit, when it comes to the situation where major or crucial parts of the law system already persecute majority of people, disobey and resistance, and even demonstration or revolution are acceptable. After all, as an effective contract, it is prerequisite for laws to respect larger part of the whole society. The time when particular laws have evidently failed to keep general order of society is when the laws need to step out of the history stage.

In sum, laws are essentially contracts of stratums, commonly protecting majority of social components, and rigid words and lines to delimit persons or groups’ behaviors. To clearly demarcate them into just and unjust ones, which are intrinsically vague, definitely overburdens them. Hence, no matter on behalf of the individuals or the entire society, haste disobeying or resisting is rather not advisable.